buceador

Hi @Rudel_chw I am aware that English is not your first language. I do not intend to patronise, what follows is for clarity. I said: 'While I respect your statement one could argue that maps are a choice whereas as 'redundant' liveries are not.' The use of 'one' in this sentence refers to the speaker as a general person or in a detached manner, so as not to be confused as the person writing. Also, the speech marks around 'redundant' signify this is a quote from another contributor and not necessarily my opinion. So when you say: 'Liveries may be redundant to you, but please do not speak for everyone else:' You will understand that I am certainly not 'speaking for everyone else' nor stating that I necessarily think liveries are redundant. Thanks. I was not making a direct comparison between Microsoft's bloatware and ED's core liveries, I was suggesting that in both cases the proffered 'solution' was to buy more storage (rather that address the potential problem of increasing data size)

While I respect your statement one could argue that maps are a choice whereas as 'redundant' liveries are not.

I remember Microsoft saying something similar about their bloatware many years ago...

Am I correct in thinking that the DTC, in its present form, only allows control of countermeasures?

5 years in and I enjoy DCS - during that time many, many things have improved. Do the changelogs meet my personal expectations? Rarely. I think the concept that DCS is not tailored to meet individual needs is often overlooked when people post about the shortcomings. More importantly, for me, is that DCS represents approximately 4% of my waking week, the other 96% is given over to real life

I lived in Malawi for 4 years and often would see the milky way on a night flight, however as @Dangerzone says the OP pic is an extended exposure photo but I imagine he's using it to illustrate a point.

Upload the track! I have been flying the F-16 almost exclusively for 5 years and have never experienced an autopilot problem.

As @BIGNEWY says, upload a track that contains the problem.

I have only just realised(!) that you cannot place ground units e.g. infantry, on ships (LST Mk.II for example) It is possible to place STATIC objects on ships but DCS doesn't include INFANTRY in the list of static objects for some obscure reason? I am aware that there is a PERSONNEL section but this only refers to carrier personnel. With the upcoming update to infantry wouldn't this be an essential feature? Is it planned? @BIGNEWY @NineLine Thanks.

https://flightsimexpo.com/watch 15USD I think but still...

ME (Mission Editor) - There is no ERROR trapping. For example - you create a simple mission: Aircraft A flies to point A and drops a bomb on target B. You have set the mission parameter to BOMBING but because of the loadout or aircraft type or the altitude or the waypoint or one of a myriad of other possibilities the aircraft simply flies on by and you are non the wiser as to why. In this example perhaps ATTACK MAP OBJECT was needed (or perhaps not) users need feedback. In that well known civilian sim, if you try to assign a keybind to a device not selected it says WRONG DEVICE. Feedback / error trapping is useful especially to newcomers.

I always manage to fire all 4. I'm only carrying 2 here but there is no problem with locking and firing...

I would say some, not many, it is not the norm, tricycle gear represents the vast majority of PPL training, even back when I did my PPL (late 90s), nobody was offering tail draggers